[손해배상(자)][공2000.7.1.(109),1422]
[1] Whether the perpetrator is liable for damages in a case where the perpetrator's act as well as the tortfeasor's illegal act and other causes concurrently occur (affirmative)
[2] Whether an employer is an incidental duty under the good faith principle accompanying an employment contract, and is obligated to protect an employee’s safety (affirmative)
[3] The case holding that an employer violated the duty to protect an employee in case where the employee suffered injury by causing a traffic accident by allowing the employee to perform his/her work at night due to overwork and water surface shortage and by allowing the employee to drive a long distance under such circumstances
[1] In compensating for damages caused by a tort, if the tortfeasor's tort was caused by competition not only the tortfeasor's tort but also the victim's act and other causes attributable to it, if the tortfeasor's tort was caused by the tortfeasor's tort, the tortfeasor shall be liable to compensate for the damages caused by the tort.
[2] An employer is an incidental duty under the good faith principle accompanying a labor contract, and is obligated to take necessary measures, such as improving the human and physical environment so that an employee does not harm life, body, or health in the course of providing his/her labor. The employer is liable to compensate for damages caused by the employee’s breach of such duty of protection.
[3] The case holding that an employer violated the duty to protect an employee in case where the employee suffered injury by causing a traffic accident by having an employee work in a state of overwork and water surface shortage and driving in such state of long distance, by allowing the employee to do so at night
[1] Article 750 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 2 of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 2 and 750 of the Civil Act
[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 97Da10925 delivered on November 27, 1998, Supreme Court Decision 97Da12082 delivered on February 23, 1999 (Gong199Sang, 538) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Da53086 delivered on April 25, 1997 (Gong197Sang, 1583), Supreme Court Decision 97Da4676 delivered on January 23, 1998 (Gong198Sang, 611), Supreme Court Decision 9Da6015 delivered on March 10, 200 (Gong200Sang, 936)
Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Kim Sung-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Defendant (Attorney Seo-dae et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Daegu District Court Decision 98Na4642 delivered on July 14, 1999
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
1. As to the establishment of employer liability
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's non-party 1's instruction to the non-party 1's hotel operator on April 195, 195 that the non-party 1 was at the time of the above-mentioned hotel driver's accident, and the non-party 1 was at the time of the above-mentioned hotel driver's accident, and the non-party 1 was at the time of the above-mentioned hotel driver's accident, and the non-party 1 was at the time of the above-mentioned hotel driver's accident, and the non-party 1 was at the time of the above 0-day driver's accident, and the non-party 1 was at the time of the above 0-day driver's accident, and the non-party 1 was at the time of the above 0-day driver's accident, and the non-party 1 was at the time of the above 0-day driver's accident, and was at the time of the above 0-day driver's accident, and was at the above 10-day.
In light of the records, the fact-finding and decision of the court below is just, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of the legal principle of causation with business relationship in illegal or user liability which misleads the facts against the rules of evidence, or in violation of the rules of evidence. precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are not appropriate
2. As to the violation of the duty to protect employees
In the case of damages caused by illegal acts, not only by the tortfeasor's illegal acts but also by the victim's act and other causes attributable to the tortfeasor's illegal acts, if the tortfeasor's illegal acts have caused damages, the perpetrator shall be liable for damages caused by the tortfeasor. The employer bears the duty of protection to devise necessary measures, such as improving the human and physical environment so that the employee does not harm his/her life, body and health in the course of providing labor as incidental duties to the principle of good faith attached to the employment contract, and the employer is liable for compensation in the event the employee suffers damages by violating such duty of protection (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da10925, Nov. 27, 1998; 97Da12082, Feb. 23, 1999).
According to the records, the defendant, through the non-party 1, had the plaintiff 1 work in a day and night for the business activities of the above hotel and danran bar, causing over-road and water surface shortage, and furthermore, in such a situation, the defendant clearly violated the duty to protect employees under the above legal principles. Since the defendant's act of violation of the duty to protect the plaintiff 1's driver's negligence and also caused the accident of this case, the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs. The judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to mistake of facts or proximate causal relation.
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)